Episcopal dispute at a glance

Episcopal dispute at a glance

There are 76 comments on the The Modesto Bee story from May 17, 2014, titled Episcopal dispute at a glance. In it, The Modesto Bee reports that:

The departing theologically conservative people in the United States and Canada call themselves Anglicans.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Modesto Bee.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1 May 24, 2014
from The Modesto Bee:

"The national Episcopal Church became more liberal in its theology, ordaining gay clergy and with national leaders stating that Jesus is not the only way to salvation/heaven and that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. Hundreds of theologically conservative parishes and four dioceses across the country disagree ..."

... they disagree because " theologically conservative" orthodox believers agree with the Bible that states Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Liberal theology is heterodox.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#2 May 31, 2014
Another way to encapsulate the thing would be:

The national Episcopal Church changed the ground rules on its members, and when the members didn't like it and wanted to leave, the national Episocpal Church suddenly discovered something that they COULD regard as inerrant and inviolable-civil property statutes!

Thus fortified by these new Eternal Truths, the national Church now works ceaselessly to make sure they keep the stuff the departing members contributed when they foolishly believed the national Episcopal Church's former teachings.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#3 Jun 5, 2014
Dan wrote:
Another way to encapsulate the thing would be:
The national Episcopal Church changed the ground rules on its members, and when the members didn't like it and wanted to leave, the national Episocpal Church suddenly discovered something that they COULD regard as inerrant and inviolable-civil property statutes!
Thus fortified by these new Eternal Truths, the national Church now works ceaselessly to make sure they keep the stuff the departing members contributed when they foolishly believed the national Episcopal Church's former teachings.
What a crock of mistaken beliefs and wormy thinking! I'm glad you are a Roman Catholic.
Dan

United States

#4 Jun 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock of mistaken beliefs and wormy thinking! I'm glad you are a Roman Catholic.
Not as glad as I am!
Dan

United States

#5 Jun 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock of mistaken beliefs and wormy thinking! I'm glad you are a Roman Catholic.
You've got to at least grudgingly admit that I *may* have a point RE: how TEC (TEC National) regards civil property statutes vs. scripture.

I mean, you've made posts yourself (long ones) extolling how scripture is flawed, biased , etc. In the same post, you called it a guide (I want to be fair), but still replete with error.

You can't tell me honestly that the TEC honchos don't treat civil property law as if its graven in stone by the very hand of The Almighty, while frequently sloughing off scripture as I outlined above.

Be honest. They absolutely defer 100% to civil authority in that aspect, sans question, while easily and frequently calling scripture into question and treating it as one would any mere suggestion.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#6 Jun 6, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got to at least grudgingly admit that I *may* have a point RE: how TEC (TEC National) regards civil property statutes vs. scripture ...
Scripture such as Acts 5:1-4:

"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said,'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God ...'”

According to an Apostle, both the property and its proceeds belonged to its owner, Ananias, and not the church he belonged to.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#7 Jun 6, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got to at least grudgingly admit that I *may* have a point RE: how TEC (TEC National) regards civil property statutes vs. scripture.
I mean, you've made posts yourself (long ones) extolling how scripture is flawed, biased , etc. In the same post, you called it a guide (I want to be fair), but still replete with error.
You can't tell me honestly that the TEC honchos don't treat civil property law as if its graven in stone by the very hand of The Almighty, while frequently sloughing off scripture as I outlined above.
Be honest. They absolutely defer 100% to civil authority in that aspect, sans question, while easily and frequently calling scripture into question and treating it as one would any mere suggestion.
I don't extoll "how scripture is flawed." I don't regard scripture to be "perfect." Neither do most Jewish clergy, who represent the tradition from which we have established our priesthood and teachers. Yet, they give scripture great honor and respect, regarding their Torah to be a precious article. So it is with the Bible and the Christian Tradition.

No. Your assertions are goofy and a mix of "apples and oranges."

Let's take the Roman Church for an example. Does the Roman Church accept that scripture is flawed?

Well, they didn't for a very long time. But today they do. Decisions and theology and Church dogma are affirmed by the pope and the Magisterium, along with the hierarchy, setting Church policy and foundations for belief. Scripture is thusly interpreted.

As far as Roman Church property is concerned, there is no question about who owns what.

And yet, there are situations where a parish has claimed ownership and title to its property. The St. Louis Polish Church is a good example. When they decided that the Roman umbrella no longer suited them, they withdrew from Roman oversight, taking and claiming title and ownership. The Roman hierarchy has fought their claims, undoubtedly to stem any potential establishment of precedent.

The Episcopal Church understands the nature of these schismatic precedents and foresaw their development decades ago. Furthermore, our hierarchical structure is much more "grass-roots" based. Even so, we are definitely not "congregational." But, every member-parishioner ultimately has input and a voice in our Church direction. Collectively, we did put the additional authority in the Office of the Presiding Bishop along with the Houses of Church representation decades ago, in anticipation of these threats of withdrawal of support and the taking of assets.

That was the purpose of the Dennis Canon and it is serving its intended purpose. Are we winning all of our battles with the "mutineers?" Certainly not. But, on balance we are surviving the schism. There is nothing really wrong with this. Those that choose to leave have every right to go. Moreover, we consider them to continue to be disciples of Christ.

We're just not interested in giving them the opportunity to take what does not belong to them. In our view, that type of giving is a form of "enabling" that serves to reinforce a lack of integrity. Let those who choose to leave form new identities and establish and maintain traditions with which they agree - but not at the expense of those they are leaving.

Let them "walk on their Faith."

We can debate all day about the non-traditional and theological directions our Church is taking. But, we are consciously choosing our own path in the belief that our priesthood and our members will be better Human Beings in discipleship to Christ because of these new pathway directions. If it costs us parts of our previous identity, the change is an acceptable price to pay.

Moreover, we believe that history will show that we are and have been generally right in this effort.

May the Holy Spirit continue be our guide, in a direct discipleship to Christ Jesus.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#8 Jun 6, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Scripture such as Acts 5:1-4:
"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said,'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God ...'”
According to an Apostle, both the property and its proceeds belonged to its owner, Ananias, and not the church he belonged to.
So, in giving to the Church, for the purpose of the success of the Ministry, Ananias chose to hold back.

You attempt to deliberately misinterpret the account of Ananias. And, you attempt to apply your deliberate misinterpretation to the present situation of TEC and to those who choose to leave TEC and take back property and assets with them. They wish to take back property and assets that they have already, previously given to the Church, in support of the success of its Ministry. Property and assets that they have reported to "Caesar" as charitable gifts and contributions, having taken deductions for such declared giving.

Now they say that they never really gave it.

They are apparently just as disingenuous as you are.
Dan

United States

#9 Jun 6, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't extoll "how scripture is flawed."Rev. Ken

(snipped for space)
"I don't extoll "how scripture is flawed."
You, on another thread:
""... the Bible clearly speaks ..."
No. The Bible says nothing.
The Bible is not a living, breathing thing that speaks. Humans are living, breathing things. The entire Cosmos, including all of conscious and subconscious Being, is a living, breathing thing.
The "Bible" is chocked full of errors and omissions and misconceptions and superstitions and taboo and myth and old, clearly mistaken ideas and stories passed down through generations that are mere skeletal remains of actual, distant past, happenings and events, some of which are very different in their presently recounted form from the truth of the actual circumstances. The "Bible" and all of its apocryphal companion texts are the body of the Hebrew and Christian progression from tribal roots to moral civilization and the story of the development of individuals and society walking with their God. It is a tapestry, old and worn and somewhat moth-eaten and still precious - maybe more precious now than when it was first woven together.
The Bible, in its many variations of printed, translated texts, is a book. The authors who wrote the texts, compiled and arranged over a period of centuries, were living, breathing people who spoke. One can believe that their writings were inspired by and through the Holy Spirit. But, the Holy Spirit is not locked up in the Bible, ready to spring out onto some hapless individual who inadvertently opens the book to a certain page.
When Jesus stood among the congregation and read from the text, the story was written that he said, "Today the scripture is fulfilled." In that moment, the scripture didn't jump up and flutter around the room. Instead, the living, breathing Human Being spoke, with knowledge, understanding and intent!
The Holy Spirit didn't jump out of a book when John, the Baptist, blessed Jesus in the River Jordan. The blessing came upon them out of the Mind and Spirit of God, descending in living Light and with conscious vibration, as the Breath of God, enveloping and radiating from within those present; descending, "as a dove" alighting, with peace, taking residence for a time, clearly evident in this realm within and through those people."
Thus informed as to your view on Scripture, you are more than willing to take a "book" at face value and as invioable, immutable truth to be obeyed unflinchingly when dealing with your fellows in TEC who may disagree with your view on Scripture (your ".. new pathway directions: I think you termed them)-.
A law book seems to be what "speaks", yes? Civil property statutes 'uber alles'. Noted that you didn't even attempt to address that dichotomy.
Doctrinaire, but only respective to secular authority and how it can beneift TEC. "new pathway directions" for those suckers in the pews who bought the previous line sold from the TEC hierarchy and contributed time and treasure based upon it. Don't like the new rules? Remove your valuables and proceed single file out the door. After all, while Scripture is malleable depending upon who brings a compelling agenda to Lambeth, property law is to be regarded as inerrant and unyielding - if it works for TEC.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#10 Jun 7, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"I don't extoll "how scripture is flawed."
You, on another thread:
""... the Bible clearly speaks ..."
No. The Bible says nothing.
The Bible is not a living, breathing thing that speaks. Humans are living, breathing things. The entire Cosmos, including all of conscious and subconscious Being, is a living, breathing thing.
The "Bible" is chocked full of errors and omissions and misconceptions and superstitions and taboo and myth and old, clearly mistaken ideas and stories passed down through generations that are mere skeletal remains of actual, distant past, happenings and events, some of which are very different in their presently recounted form from the truth of the actual circumstances. The "Bible" and all of its apocryphal companion texts are the body of the Hebrew and Christian progression from tribal roots to moral civilization and the story of the development of individuals and society walking with their God. It is a tapestry, old and worn and somewhat moth-eaten and still precious - maybe more precious now than when it was first woven together.
The Bible, in its many variations of printed, translated texts, is a book. The authors who wrote the texts, compiled and arranged over a period of centuries, were living, breathing people who spoke. One can believe that their writings were inspired by and through the Holy Spirit. But, the Holy Spirit is not locked up in the Bible, ready to spring out onto some hapless individual who inadvertently opens the book to a certain page.
When Jesus stood among the congregation and read from the text, the story was written that he said, "Today the scripture is fulfilled." In that moment, the scripture didn't jump up and flutter around the room. Instead, the living, breathing Human Being spoke, with knowledge, understanding and intent!
The Holy Spirit didn't jump out of a book when John, the Baptist, blessed Jesus in the River Jordan. The blessing came upon them out of the Mind and Spirit of God, descending in living Light and with conscious vibration, as the Breath of God, enveloping and radiating from within those present; descending, "as a dove" alighting, with peace, taking residence for a time, clearly evident in this realm within and through those people."
Thus informed as to your view on Scripture, you are more than willing to take a "book" at face value and as invioable, immutable truth to be obeyed unflinchingly when dealing with your fellows in TEC who may disagree with your view on Scripture (your ".. new pathway directions: I think you termed them)-.
A law book seems to be what "speaks", yes? Civil property statutes 'uber alles'. Noted that you didn't even attempt to address that dichotomy.
Doctrinaire, but only respective to secular authority and how it can beneift TEC. "new pathway directions" for those suckers in the pews who bought the previous line sold from the TEC hierarchy and contributed time and treasure based upon it. Don't like the new rules? Remove your valuables and proceed single file out the door. After all, while Scripture is malleable depending upon who brings a compelling agenda to Lambeth, property law is to be regarded as inerrant and unyielding - if it works for TEC.
LOL!!!....... No.

The "Law Book" is only a way to settle differences of claim.

It is a practical guide and a necessary form of relief.

Why don't you argue for your views of TEC behaviors by juxtaposing them with Roman Church remedies for similar problems?

It would lessen your reliance on condescension while also showing the basis for your point of view.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#11 Jun 7, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in giving to the Church, for the purpose of the success of the Ministry, Ananias chose to hold back ...
As Peter said: "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?"

Are you saying the Apostle was wrong and that you are right?
Dan

United States

#12 Jun 7, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....... No.
The "Law Book" is only a way to settle differences of claim.
It is a practical guide and a necessary form of relief.
Why don't you argue for your views of TEC behaviors by juxtaposing them with Roman Church remedies for similar problems?
It would lessen your reliance on condescension while also showing the basis for your point of view.
Why not play along with you when you (twice now) attempt to deflect the discussion to the RCC?

No, thanks anyway.

I'll stick to the subject, if you please.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#13 Jun 9, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
As Peter said: "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?"
Are you saying the Apostle was wrong and that you are right?
No.

I wrote that you deliberately attempted to misinterpret the evident lesson in the story of Ananias. That ... IS ... what you did.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#14 Jun 9, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not play along with you when you (twice now) attempt to deflect the discussion to the RCC?
No, thanks anyway.
I'll stick to the subject, if you please.
Thanks, no. I don't please.

You mischaracterize the nature of events transpiring in TEC.

You do it from what you believe to be your own perspective, as Roman Church-based.

But, obviously, if a bunch of Roman Church parishes and bishop-led Dioceses within the Roman Church were to attempt to pull off a similar exodus as has or is occurring in TEC, the Roman Church hierarchy would very likely resort to the same remedies as has TEC.

In fact, this has occurred in at least one instance and the near example is the Polish Church in St. Louis, MO.

Read this to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_K... (St._Louis,_Missouri)

Rev. Ken
Dan

United States

#15 Jun 9, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
I wrote that you deliberately attempted to misinterpret the evident lesson in the story of Ananias. That ... IS ... what you did.
"misinterpret"?

Maybe Joe just thinks that the passage you alluded to is one of those that, in your words, is "chocked full of errors and omissions and misconceptions and superstitions and taboo and myth and old, clearly mistaken ideas and stories passed down through generations that are mere skeletal remains of actual, distant past, happenings and events, some of which are very different in their presently recounted form from the truth of the actual circumstances."

That's your explanation for things you don't agree with in scripture that Joe might cite, isn't it?
Dan

United States

#16 Jun 9, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, no. I don't please.
You mischaracterize the nature of events transpiring in TEC.
You do it from what you believe to be your own perspective, as Roman Church-based.
But, obviously, if a bunch of Roman Church parishes and bishop-led Dioceses within the Roman Church were to attempt to pull off a similar exodus as has or is occurring in TEC, the Roman Church hierarchy would very likely resort to the same remedies as has TEC.
In fact, this has occurred in at least one instance and the near example is the Polish Church in St. Louis, MO.
Read this to educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_K... (St._Louis,_Missouri)
Rev. Ken
I'm sure you "don't please".

Well, yeah, guilty as charged on interpreting a news story and these events unfolding from my "own perspective". Who's perspective should I have used, other than my own?

I already knew about St. Stanislaus. A one-off thing. They are no longer part of the Archdiocese and they got to keep their stuff. Hardly a parallel with these TEC matters, is it? Had this been akin to TEC, St. Stan's parishioners would be out on their asses holding services in a storefront.

Any more deflections you want to make, or do you care now to address the thread subject, since I've addressed your red herring (at your insistence)?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17 Jun 9, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"misinterpret"?
Maybe Joe just thinks that the passage you alluded to is one of those that, in your words, is "chocked full of errors and omissions and misconceptions and superstitions and taboo and myth and old, clearly mistaken ideas and stories passed down through generations that are mere skeletal remains of actual, distant past, happenings and events, some of which are very different in their presently recounted form from the truth of the actual circumstances."
That's your explanation for things you don't agree with in scripture that Joe might cite, isn't it?
LOL!!!.... No.

If Joe wants to make excuses for Ananias, that's his business. And, if you want to make excuses for Joe, then that is YOUR business.

Ananias dropped dead when Peter brought the disingenuous act to light. Apparently, Ananias' wife experienced a similar demise. I haven't read anywhere that this account of their deaths is disputed or somehow historically incorrect.

But, the Genesis accounts of Creation and the travails of Noah and his family are mythical, allegorical, moralistic and only partly true. Some parts are very obviously not true at all.

The stories in Acts and Genesis are in the Bible.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#18 Jun 9, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you "don't please".
Well, yeah, guilty as charged on interpreting a news story and these events unfolding from my "own perspective". Who's perspective should I have used, other than my own?
I already knew about St. Stanislaus. A one-off thing. They are no longer part of the Archdiocese and they got to keep their stuff. Hardly a parallel with these TEC matters, is it? Had this been akin to TEC, St. Stan's parishioners would be out on their asses holding services in a storefront.
Any more deflections you want to make, or do you care now to address the thread subject, since I've addressed your red herring (at your insistence)?
I respectfully disagree.

The formerly Episcopalian parishes in South Carolina aren't "out on their asses holding services in a storefront."

The formerly Episcopalian Church parishes of Iker's Diocese of Fort Worth aren't "out on their asses holding services in a storefront."

But, some of the Episcopal Church parishes in these formerly Episcopal Church Dioceses who have chosen to stay in TEC are actually out. Whether or not they are "on their asses" in some storefront is another question.

The St. Stanislaus Church ... IS ... a good example. You say it is a "one off thing." Well, maybe so and then again, maybe not. In any case, the Roman Church hierarchy resorted to exactly the same remedies as has TEC, which is to take the dispute into Court.

One stands to win or lose in Court. In the case of the St. Stanislaus Church, from their perspective, they have won their case and the Roman Church has lost.

Now that they are having conversations with TEC, maybe they'll find the hierarchical oversight they are looking for.

Rev. Ken
Dan

United States

#19 Jun 9, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully disagree.
The formerly Episcopalian parishes in South Carolina aren't "out on their asses holding services in a storefront."
The formerly Episcopalian Church parishes of Iker's Diocese of Fort Worth aren't "out on their asses holding services in a storefront."
But, some of the Episcopal Church parishes in these formerly Episcopal Church Dioceses who have chosen to stay in TEC are actually out. Whether or not they are "on their asses" in some storefront is another question.
The St. Stanislaus Church ... IS ... a good example. You say it is a "one off thing." Well, maybe so and then again, maybe not. In any case, the Roman Church hierarchy resorted to exactly the same remedies as has TEC, which is to take the dispute into Court.
One stands to win or lose in Court. In the case of the St. Stanislaus Church, from their perspective, they have won their case and the Roman Church has lost.
Now that they are having conversations with TEC, maybe they'll find the hierarchical oversight they are looking for.
Rev. Ken
Respectfully disagree all you wish, but this doesn't tell me that the displaced are meeting in their church-not a "storefront", but might as well be.

"Stall said he and some other former Trinity Episcopal members began holding monthly services with support of the clergy in private homes. On Aug. 4, the group moved to weekly services at the Coastal Carolina University Education Center on U.S. 17 Bypass."

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/09/04/2960324/my...

Couldn't find anything on the Iker's FW thing, but I'm assuming they aren't strill using their former church building. You can link anything that counters that.

"Well, maybe so and then again, maybe not. In any case, the Roman Church hierarchy resorted to exactly the same remedies as has TEC, which is to take the dispute into Court.
One stands to win or lose in Court. In the case of the St. Stanislaus Church, from their perspective, they have won their case and the Roman Church has lost.
Now that they are having conversations with TEC, maybe they'll find the hierarchical oversight they are looking for."

Yeah, definitely one-off. There isn't any mass exodus of Catholic parishes seceding from diocesan control for the reasons given with TEC.

Yeah, they went to court and subsequently settled the matter, leaving the St. Stans folks with their church, no longer under diocesan control and not taking all St. Stans' money. It's over, and St. Stan's exists on their own now as an independent church. Nothing like the TEC fights, but glad you mentioned it so we can see the difference.

I'm sure they are attractive to TEC, because they have "stuff" They do now, anyway. Give it time.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20 Jun 9, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Respectfully disagree all you wish, but this doesn't tell me that the displaced are meeting in their church-not a "storefront", but might as well be.
"Stall said he and some other former Trinity Episcopal members began holding monthly services with support of the clergy in private homes. On Aug. 4, the group moved to weekly services at the Coastal Carolina University Education Center on U.S. 17 Bypass."
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/09/04/2960324/my...
Couldn't find anything on the Iker's FW thing, but I'm assuming they aren't strill using their former church building. You can link anything that counters that.
"Well, maybe so and then again, maybe not. In any case, the Roman Church hierarchy resorted to exactly the same remedies as has TEC, which is to take the dispute into Court.
One stands to win or lose in Court. In the case of the St. Stanislaus Church, from their perspective, they have won their case and the Roman Church has lost.
Now that they are having conversations with TEC, maybe they'll find the hierarchical oversight they are looking for."
Yeah, definitely one-off. There isn't any mass exodus of Catholic parishes seceding from diocesan control for the reasons given with TEC.
Yeah, they went to court and subsequently settled the matter, leaving the St. Stans folks with their church, no longer under diocesan control and not taking all St. Stans' money. It's over, and St. Stan's exists on their own now as an independent church. Nothing like the TEC fights, but glad you mentioned it so we can see the difference.
I'm sure they are attractive to TEC, because they have "stuff" They do now, anyway. Give it time.
LOL!!!.... "... because they have stuff?"

Materialistic view.

Not the reason the St. Stanis folks left the Roman Church.

Not the reason they are having conversations with TEC, either.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

San Joaquin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Orange Cove spent lavishly on a BMX park that i... (May '09) Feb 13 Peter 83
News Homicide in Mendota (Feb '08) Feb 8 tmarie4 4
Kerman Ca, Girl and two sons are missing. (Jan '15) Dec '16 Bowiemantx 4
News This judge says toddlers can defend themselves ... (Mar '16) Mar '16 Truthfull 2
News Even if El Ni o delivers, California drought ma... (Dec '15) Dec '15 GEORGE MCNIEL 1
News REACHing everyone is goal of Stockton activist (Sep '14) Sep '14 Zombie Corpse Rental 1
Michelle Hyde (May '14) May '14 Virginia 1

San Joaquin Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Joaquin Mortgages